Evidence‐Based and Victim‐Centered Prosecutorial Policies

• Author: Mary A. Finn
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12049
• Date: 01 August 2013
• Published date: 01 August 2013

RESEARCH ARTICLE

VICTIM-CENTERED PROSECUTORIAL

POLICIES

Evidence-Based and Victim-Centered

Prosecutorial Policies

Examination of Deterrent and Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Effects on Domestic Violence

Mary A. Finn

Georgia State University

Many innovations designed to enhance victim safety and ensureoffender account-

ability in domestic violence cases have occurred over the past three decades.

In addition to proarrest policies enacted by law enforcement, prosecutors have

played central roles in the adoption of mandatory prosecution, specialized domestic violence

courts, and community coordinated responses (Worrall,2008: 235). These innovations were

undertaken to assure better justice outcomes for victims and communities by preventing

prosecutors from routinely screening out domestic violence cases because of victim reluc-

tance to proceed (Goodman, Bennett, and Dutton, 1999) or perceptions of such offenses

as trivial (Hart, 1993). Nearly three quarters of prosecutors surveyed in more than 200

domestic violence courts reported that they often or always proceeded with a case regardless

of the victim’s willingness to support prosecution (Labriola, Bradley, O’Sullivan, Rempel,

and Moore, 2009: 42). Thus, regardless of whether domestic violence cases were processed

through traditional or specialized courts, prosecutors remained powerful actors in the justice

process (Krug, 2002), serving as the key decision makers in selection and screening of cases

for adjudication (Jacoby, 1980: 107). Despite their important role, prosecutors have not

garnered the attention of scholars (Dempsey, 2009; Worrall, Ross, and McCord, 2006).

Advanced in the wake of research indicating that arrests deterred futureabuse (Maxwell,

Garner, and Fagan, 2001; Sherman and Berk, 1984), mandatory prosecution policies

Data for this research were obtained from a project funded under Grant 1999-WT-VX-0008 from the National

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Direct all correspondence to Mary A.

Finn, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State

University, 140 Decatur Street, Atlanta, GA 30302-4018 (e-mail: mfinn@gsu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12049 C2013 American Society of Criminology 443

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 12 rIssue 3

Research Article Victim-Centered Prosecutorial Policies

(often also referred to as no-drop, evidence-based, or victim-less policies) were reportedly in

widespread use in prosecutors’ offices in large urban counties by the mid-1990s (Corsilles,

1994; Rebovich, 1996). Indeed, several scholars linked the adoption of mandatory prose-

cution policies specifically to higher prosecution and conviction rates and lower diversion

and deferred adjudication rates for domestic violence cases across the United States (Klein,

2009; Smith, Durose, and Langan, 2008). Mandatory prosecution policies convey an insti-

tutional commitment to treat domestic violence as a serious crime and, thus, may serve as a

powerful specific deterrent to batterers (Ferraro and Pope, 1993) and a general deterrent to

potential domestic violence perpetrators (Goolkasian, 1986; Hanna, 1996; Lerman, 1981).

Such policies were applauded because they clarified that domestic violence is a crime against

the society and not just against the battered victim (McCord, 1992; Wills, 1997). As such,

the state, not the victim, was the aggrieved party and the prosecutor controlled the direction

of the prosecution (Corsilles, 1994; Wills, 1997). Some prosecutors and advocates reported

that adoption of mandatory prosecution reduced batterer intimidation of victims (Wills,

1997) and increased the batterer’sguilty pleas (Goolkasian, 1986). Given that such policies

prevented prosecutors from dropping domestic violence cases as long as sufficient evidence

existed to prove a crime occurred (Epstein, 1999), case attrition rates were lower (Corsilles,

1994).

However, critics of mandatory prosecution charged that resources were wasted by

requiring that the prosecution proceed with cases that, without victim cooperation, had

little chance of resulting in convictions (Corsilles, 1994), thus contributing to overcrowded

court dockets (Davis, Smith, and Nickles, 1998). In addition, critics believed that such

policies undercut efforts at empowering victims of abuse, further eroding their self-esteem

and sense of control (Epstein, 1999; Ford, 1991; Goodman and Epstein,2007; Goolkasian,

1986; Han, 2003; Zorza, 2010). Moreover, it was suggested that such policies further

victimized women if enforcement of mandatory prosecution led to punitive actions against

them (see Dempsey, 2009; Esptein, 1999; Waites, 1985), increased the risk of batterer

retaliation, and perhaps most importantly, discouraged victims from calling the police if

violence reoccurred (Bell, Goodman, and Dutton, 2007; Mills, 1998). Indeed, it was partly

because of concerns about both the waste of resources and the potential harmful effects of

coercing victims to move forward in cases that some jurisdictions adopted victim-centered

policies (Davis, O’Sullivan, Farole, and Rempel, 2008).

On three separate occasions over the previous 8 years, Criminology & Public Policy

has published articles that examined the influence of adoption of mandatory prosecutorial

policies in cases of domestic violence on several important outcomes, including extent and

length of court oversight and convictions (Peterson and Dixon, 2005); pleas, sentences,

and time to disposition (Davis, Smith, and Taylor, 2003); and recidivism, victim safety,

victim satisfaction, and empowerment (Davis et al., 2008) in criminal courts in New York

City and in Milwaukee, WI (Davis et al., 2003). Policy essays accompanying the articles

consistently noted the importance of understanding how prosecutorial decisions that do not

444 Criminology & Public Policy